![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
November 1, 2006
UW Outreach Building (951 N. Poplar)
Senator Charles Scott, Cochair
Representative Elaine Harvey, Cochair
Senator Mike Massie
Senator Tony Ross
Senator Kathryn Sessions
Representative Rosie Berger
Representative Debbie Hammons
Representative Edward Buchanan
None
Representative Bob Brechtel
Representative Jack Landon
Representative Doug Osborn
Dave Gruver, Assistant Director
Joseph A. Rodriguez, Staff Attorney
Don Richards, Senior Research Analyst
Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the
Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
The Legislative Oversight Committee on
Quality Child Care met for one day in
The next meeting of
the Committee will be held on November 14, 2006 in
Cochair
The minutes from the
July 28, 2006 meeting of the Oversight Committee were approved without
objection.
Cochair
Cochair Scott reviewed
the charge of the Oversight Committee as articulated in '06 Laws, Ch. 64. He reminded the Committee that they agreed during
its first meeting that the voucher system would not be looked at by the
Committee, given the fact that only a part of the child care funding is being
addressed by this Committee. He stated
that there are two items to be considered by the Committee including (a) needs
assessment and (b) discussion of the operation of the program and statutory
changes necessary.
Kathy Emmons, Director, Department of Workforce Services (DWS),
provided an overview of the work of the Task Force, which was expanded beyond
executive branch agencies by the Governor’s Office. She suggested that the recommendations were a
result of significant work and compromise of the Task Force. Ms. Emmons interpreted the goals of the Task
Force as: (1) increase the quality of
child care; (2) identify the quantity of child care and unmet needs; and (3) identify ways to support the child care
industry as an important contribution to the
Ms. Emmons initiated
her discussion by reciting some overall findings of the Task Force including:
Statements at town meetings held around the
state that anecdotally illustrated an unmet need;
84 percent of child care providers had
waiting lists;
85 percent of business representatives
noted that child care impacts their hiring;
80 percent of businesses said that lack
of care affects employee retention; and
74 percent of
businesses said lack of care affects employees working non-traditional
shifts.
Donna Merrill, contractor, DWS, discussed the methods and results of
the Assessment Profile conducted to assess the quality of child
care. (Appendix 4 provides a summary of
the dimensions, methods, and results.) She
noted that three types of business were rated:
Family Child Care Homes,
For purposes of clarification, Ms. Emmons noted that legally exempt child
care providers include those programs administered by state government or
political subdivisions (or funded by state or county resources). Also, child care providers serving two or
fewer unrelated children are legally exempt from licensure. Beverly Campbell, Department of Family
Services (DFS), stated that the universe of unlicensed providers is unknown.
Sue Bacon, Department of Family Services (DFS), explained the current
federal program administered by DFS provides assistance to low-income working families,
or those working toward self-sufficiency.
Currently the federal program supports about 3,000 families and 5,000
children in
Ms. Emmons discussed recommendations of the Task Force: business management services, quality
enhancement grants, early childhood scholarships for families, technical
assistance, professional development grants, and quality rating
assessments. She discussed each of these
components (See Appendix 3, pp. 3-9) and the associated recommended budget (See
Appendix 3, pp. 17-18). Highlights of
the issues included:
The Committee
discussed whether the quality assessments would be private or public
documents and whether the Legislature should decide this issue explicitly.
Ms. Emmons
noted that Business Management Services are a component that the Task
Force is recommending but was not included in the original legislation. She recommended existing agencies (Small
Business Development Center (SBDC) and the Wyoming Business Council (WBC))
would operate this aspect of the program.
Ms. Emmons
explained that early childhood scholarships are recommended to be provided
for the families served based upon (a) the level of care and the (b) the
income of the family served as a percentage of the economic
self-sufficiency standard. Funds
under this recommendation are recommended to begin in FY09-10. Responding to a question, Ms. Emmons
noted that the cost of quality child care at various levels is not known
at this time and would depend upon what would be included in each level. Members of the Committee noted that the
recommendations provide more than $3 million in expansion of facilities,
but no funding for operations.
Ms. Emmons
described that quality enhancement grants would provide funds for
equipment and supplies for providers to improve quality. This recommendation was not included in
the original bill, and the Task Force recommends $750,000 for this
component.
Ms. Emmons
continued with a discussion of technical assistance to work with
communities to meet requirements, improve parent awareness, help providers
build their plans, and be the link between resources and providers. The Committee discussed the need to
provide flexible hours to providers if this component is adopted. The recommended cost is $420,360 along
with a request for five FTE.
With respect
to professional development grants, according to Ms. Emmons, the Task
Force anticipates 600 participants at a cost of $1,000 per year for a
total of $600,000 per year. She
noted that the outline of this component is included in the original
legislation.
Responding to
questions, Ms. Emmons indicated that it would take approximately 9 months
to get this program up and running, complete the necessary regulations,
and train the necessary staff.
Jim Pedersen, Pedersen Planning Consultants, provided a summary of the
available services and unmet needs through 2016. (See Appendix 6-1 for a copy of his
presentation and Appendix 6-2 for a copy of the full report.) He provided an overall summary of the
statewide child care capacity, by county, and noted that the enrollment could
exceed capacity due to the different times children are served. The statewide summary also outlined
enrollments by age. Mr. Pedersen
suggested that he believes there is a need for weekend, extended hour, and
24-hour child care. He noted his
expected total demand for child care, in terms of numbers of children range between
28,000 and 48,000. He indicated that the
unmet demand, based upon a midpoint estimate, is approximately 14,695 children in
2016. Mr. Pedersen stated that the
consequences of not addressing child care needs (a) reduces the extent of
potential economic benefit derived from the expansion of the child care
industry and (b) the state establishes an unnecessary barrier to workforce
recruitment and retention. Finally, Mr.
Pedersen offered a range of potential opportunities to address child care
needs. (See Appendix 3, p. 10)
After breaking for lunch, Ms. Emmons
continued her presentation.
Quality Rating Scale. Ms. Emmons described the proposed elements of
the quality rating system. The levels
were reduced from five levels (as in the original legislation) to four. In addition, four dimensions are recommended
to be measured: Family Partnerships and
Community Involvement; Staff Qualifications and Education; Learning
Environment; and Staff/Child Ratios.
(See Appendix 3, pp. 5-9.)
Responding to Committee questions, Ms. Emmons indicated that based upon
surveys, only about 14 percent of staff have an associates degree. The target date to achieve an associates
degree under the guidelines (2012) was established by the Task Force as a
reasonable achievement date.
Early Childhood Scholarships for Families. Ms.
Emmons proposed a system of scholarships based upon family income and the level
of quality of the child care program. She
also explained the development of the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Standard
(FESS), which is based upon unique information in each county and measures the
amount of funding to support a family without subsidy. (See Appendix 7 for a copy of the FESS for
four selected counties.) The Committee
discussed the regional cost differences allowed by this system and the need to
update this standard regularly.
Build Child Care Capacity. Bob Jensen, WBC, explained the
recommendations for child care facilities.
Specifically, he noted the Task Force recommended a separate pot of
funds within the Business Ready Community program dedicated for child care
services. He also explained that perhaps
the community facility grant and loan program could also be used for child care
facilities. Finally, he discussed a loan
program for start-up and existing child care providers currently administered
through the WBC. (Appendix 3, pp. 12-13) Mr. Jensen, responding to questions,
indicated that the Business Council has already approved these types of grants
based upon the fact that child care in
Capacity Development Grants. Ms. Emmons indicated that this provision is
already provided for in the original legislation and would provide for funds to
purchase resources.
Responding to a question from the Committee, Dave Gruver, LSO, indicated
there are constitutional considerations.
Neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions may make
donations to individuals, corporations, or associations except for the
necessary support of the poor; nor may appropriations be made to entities not
under the absolute control of the state for charitable, educational and other
specified purposes, citing the relevant Articles of the Constitution. To avoid being a donation, adequate
consideration back to the state should be provided. He suggested that in the child development
realm, a program could conceivably be constructed so that training of providers
may be defensible, but it would be more difficult to defend the purchase of
supplies for providers. He indicated
that if the Legislature wants to defend components of the program as “necessary
support of the poor" the most extreme examples should be considered, since
those would be the most likely to be attacked; e.g., as proposed, a provider
providing the highest quality level care to three children of a single parent
in Teton county making $87,000 would receive an annual subsidy of approximately
$4,600 under the proposed program. The Legislature
is given deference in determining what is necessary support of the poor, but it
is not unbounded deference. He also
added that the insertion of legislative findings could provide an explanation
of the rationale to the courts, which may take those findings into
consideration.
Karl Coulson, a child
care provider in
Jan Lawrence,
Chairman of Basic Beginnings, noted that heavy regulation discourages making a
profit and she operates a for-profit business.
She spoke in support of the quality rating system.
Kendra West,
Director,
Dianna Webb,
Jackie Immel,
Executive Director of Children and Nutritional Services, expressed support for
the legislation. She noted the lack of
state support for early childhood care as compared to university education and
K-12 education.
Ginger Williams, The
Learning Center located in Teton and Sublette counties, discussed the high cost
of services in Teton county. She noted the
average cost of care is $38 to $40 per day for child care. She expressed support for the bill, noting
some changes may be necessary.
Charlie Ware, Chair,
Workforce Development Council, stated that housing and child care are important
workforce development issues. He
expressed his support for the bill on behalf of the Council.
Joan Bangen,
expressed support for the work of the Committee. She indicated that the legislation supports
affordability, accessibility and quality.
She also spoke against making the bill too specific so that the system
can adapt to new research.
Ginny Harmelink
stated that the low learning environment scores may be due to the fact there
are no requirements for competencies.
Deanna Frey, Wyoming
Childrens Action Alliance, expressed support for the Committee’s efforts.
Becky Vanderberg, Wyoming Family Coalition, stated that every bill has
good intentions and has unintended consequences. She spoke against government intrusion and
cited concerns that would take away parental choice and options.
Representative Landon suggested the system is fairly complicated as
proposed, and indicated that he was thinking about ways to simplify the
proposals. He brought to the attention
of the Committee dimensions that were easy to measure, e.g., staff ratios,
training, etc. He cited research that suggested
that family features were more important than child care quality, and the most
reliable factor in child development were the characteristics of the
mothers. Representative Landon suggested
that rather than levels of quality, one could assign points and then make the
assessment on the cumulative number of points received in areas that research
suggests are high quality. He suggested
that compensation of providers might be varied by the time of day.
The Committee discussed raising the current rates paid for by DFS under
the federal program and whether there would be unintended consequences
Next, the Committee walked through the recommendations (See Appendix 3,
pp. 3-18):
Ø
Business management services – The Committee
directed staff to include this component in the draft legislation including
funding of $230,000. The Committee
requested two options: (1) directing the
funding to DWS for subsequent contract and (2) directing the funding to
WBC. The Committee directed staff to include
language to contract with appropriate providers and include classroom training
with individual consultation, as appropriate.
Ø
Quality enhancement grants – The Committee
discussed the constitutionality of this component, noting the public purpose is
necessary but not sufficient to pass constitutional muster. Ms. Curran, Governor’s Office, suggested that
one of the reasons this component was recommended was to jump start the
scholarship portion of this funding. Dave
Gruver discussed broad options that would assist in making these types of
grants more defensible, such as legislative findings of reduced state
educational expenditures and adequate consideration. The Committee discussed requirements of a
tracking system that may show improvements in child development and the
existing reporting requirements in the current legislation. The Committee did not adopt this component to
be included in the draft legislation.
Ø
Early childhood scholarships for families –
Cochair Scott suggested one draft section with different fiscal options on a
half-year and full-year basis, showing different income eligibilities and
quality rating assumptions. Senator
Massie requested the DWS propose options to remove the fifty percent of market
rates cap with some kind of an income test. The Committee discussed using the FPL or the
FESS and directed DWS staff to base the estimates on percentages of the FPL and
use the county relative costs as determined by FESS and the regional cost
adjustment used in K-12 to derive county variations. The Committee clarified that the regional
adjustments should be made only for the eligibility levels and not for the
payments made to providers. Further, the Committee directed LSO staff to
incorporate appropriate draft language to meet the requirements discussed above
and specifically reference the table on page nine of the Task Force Report
(Appendix 3) for the amounts based upon levels, but not based upon FESS levels,
and require DWS to request in each biennial budget submitted to the Governor
the amount which would be necessary based upon the parameters set by statute. The Committee also discussed what information
might be included with the DWS budget submission.
Ø
Technical assistance – The Committee directed
LSO staff to include the recommendation in the draft language along with five
FTE and $420,360 to DWS.
Ø
Professional development grants – The Committee
directed staff to incorporate this suggestion and maintain the ten percent
matching requirement included in existing statute. The Committee further directed staff to limit
the grants to educational scholarships.
Ø
Quality assessment – The Committee directed staff
to incorporate this recommendation in the draft, building upon the existing
language in statute.
Ø
Capital construction – The Committee directed
staff to set aside a specific source of funding for a separate pool of funds
under the BRC option, including the recommended appropriation and requested FTE
for the WBC.
Ø
The Committee noted that the recommended loan
program already exists.
Ø
Capacity enhancement grants – After
discussion, the Committee directed staff to include this provision,
incorporating the structure of the grants which call for per child funding
found in current statute in order to purchase "slots for children". Ms. Emmons noted that the recommendation in
the Task Force report is quite different than that found in legislation. The Committee further directed staff to
include language that would restrict eligibility for the grants to those
children eligible for the scholarships discussed above or the DFS subsidy
program discussed above and clarified special populations such as infants and
children whose care may otherwise be difficult to obtain in the community, as
stated in the original legislation, would be eligible if the families met the
income requirements.
Ø
Quality rating system– The Committee directed
staff to include general language to allow DWS to write rules, based upon current
statutory charge language, including four or five parameters and four levels. The Committee directed DWS staff to provide
LSO staff with suggested language for the parameters. The Committee further requested that the
draft require those with direct contact with children have a bachelor’s degree in
the age-appropriate discipline by 2017 to qualify at the highest level. Directors would be excluded from this
requirement if they were not directly providing care to the children. The Committee clarified this requirement
should apply to centers and home-based care.
Ø
Parent education and public awareness,
uniform reporting, and grievance board – The Committee noted these provisions
are already in the bill and should be continued. DWS staff indicated that they would provide,
to LSO staff, an amendment that applies to these areas to be included in the
draft.
Ø
The Committee discussed whether a new bill
should be created or HB 92 from last year be used as the basis for the new
legislation. The Committee directed LSO
staff to make several specific clean-up provisions, including proper reference
to DFS on pages 3 and 7 of the adopted legislation; removing the discussion of
at-risk included in W.S. 14-4-203; remove references to the Oversight Committee
and Task Force, as appropriate; codify on-going reports; include modifying
language which would allow federal references to be modified without requiring
state references to be modified.
Ø
LSO staff confirmed that the Committee
desired to keep the legislation in its present form, except for changes
directed by the Committee and enumerated above.
The Committee also authorized LSO staff to make technical changes as
needed.
Ø
The Committee directed staff to separate the
authorizing language and the appropriations and personnel authorizations, by
specific component, into two bills and to include all recommended appropriations
and personnel authorizations as recommended for each component in the Task
Force report.
Ø
The Committee also directed DWS to provide
the first-year and subsequent year (steady state) anticipated costs of the
legislation and proposals, incorporating different options and assumptions for
each of the above components by the November 14th meeting.
The Committee suggested that by the time the Legislature convenes in
January, DWS should have a draft of proposed rules and regulations prepared. Representative Berger asked for a report on
the Riverton day care leasing a community facility through the business ready
community program.
The next meeting of
the Committee will be November 14, 2006 in Casper.
There being no further
business, Cochair Scott adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Senator Scott,
Cochairman Representative
Harvey, Cochair